The Confrontation Clause

In recent years the Supreme Court has given additional attention to the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Defendants can confront their accusers during trials. What if, however, the evidence presented is expert testimony created by analysts? Do they always have to show up? And if they do, what about the costs that that requirement imposes?

The recently argued case of Williams v. Illinois presents this question to the court.

- The Bill of Rights Doesn't Come Cheap.
- ScotusBlog: Williams v. Illinois.
- Sixth Amendment's Confronation Clause. 

Scalia's Irrelevance?

Linda Greenhouse has an interesting take on Justice Scalia's notoriously snooty dissenting opinions. They are a sign of a general lack of impact on the court:

So the question raised by Justice Scalia’s most recent intemperate display remains: what does this smart, rhetorically gifted man think his bullying accomplishes?

It’s a puzzle. But having raised the question, I will venture an answer. Antonin Scalia, approaching his 25th anniversary as a Supreme Court justice, has cast a long shadow but has accomplished surprisingly little. Nearly every time he has come close to achieving one of his jurisprudential goals, his colleagues have either hung back at the last minute or, feeling buyer’s remorse, retreated at the next opportunity.

Expanding the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause

Another Supreme Court decision. From the NYT:

Crime laboratory reports may not be used against criminal defendants at trial unless the analysts responsible for creating them give testimony and subject themselves to cross-examination, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The ruling was an extension of a 2004 decision that breathed new life into the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, which gives a criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

Four dissenting justices said that scientific evidence should be treated differently than, say, statements from witnesses to a crime. They warned that the decision would subject the nation’s criminal justice system to “a crushing burden” and that it means “guilty defendants will go free, on the most technical grounds.”

- Read the decision here.
- Background from Scotuswiki.

How Can You Confront a Dead Witness?

The Constitution, given its simplicity, creates dilemmas. The freedoms it establishes for the public can also make it more difficult for government to ensure justice. A constitutional government is designed to do both. Supreme Court cases often involve determining how this can be done in a particular case.

In the case of Giles v. California, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether the 6th Amendment right of for defendants to confront witnesses is waived if the defendant killed the witness who may have left some information that accuses the defendant of a crime. This is called forfeiture by wrongdoing.